Skip to main content

clarify

Ask targeted clarifying questions to uncover missed requirements before execution

Quellinformationen

Repository
rlaope/bestwork-agent
Letzte Quellaktivität
8. April 2026 um 05:40
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
1
Forks
0

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
clarify
description
Ask targeted clarifying questions to uncover missed requirements before execution
When this skill is invoked, you MUST follow this exact output sequence. ## Step 1: Header (print IMMEDIATELY) ``` [BW] clarify — requirement deep-check before execution... ``` ## Step 2: Analyze the request Before asking any question, do TWO things silently: ### 2a. Codebase exploration If the request involves existing code, spawn an Explore agent to understand the current state: - Affected files and their structure - Existing patterns and conventions - Adjacent code that might be impacted NEVER ask the user about something you can find in the codebase yourself. ### 2b. Dimension scoring Score the request on 4 dimensions (0-100): | Dimension | Weight | What it measures | |-----------|--------|------------------| | **Goal** | 40% | Is the primary objective unambiguous? | | **Scope** | 25% | What's in and what's out? | | **Criteria** | 20% | How do we know it's done correctly? | | **Risk** | 15% | What constraints, edge cases, or failure modes exist? | Print the initial assessment: ``` [BW] clarity assessment: Goal: {score}% — {brief reason} Scope: {score}% — {brief reason} Criteria: {score}% — {brief reason} Risk: {score}% — {brief reason} ───────────────── Overall: {weighted score}% ``` ### 2c. Auto-pass check If overall score >= 80%: skip to Step 4 (no questions needed). ``` [BW] ✓ requirements clear enough — proceeding without questions ``` If the request contains concrete signals (file paths, function names, error messages, numbered steps, acceptance criteria), boost the score accordingly. ## Step 3: Question loop (max 5 rounds) Ask ONE question per round, targeting the **lowest-scoring dimension**. ### Question format Use AskUserQuestion for each question: ``` [BW] clarify round {N}/5 — targeting: {dimension} ({score}%) {The question — specific, actionable, not generic} Hints (if applicable): - {option A based on codebase context} - {option B} - {option C} (say "go" to skip remaining questions and start execution) ``` ### Question rules - **Target the weakest dimension** — always explain WHY this question matters - **ONE question per round** — never batch multiple questions - **Be specific, not generic** — BAD: "What are the requirements?" GOOD: "The user model has email and phone — should auth support both, or email-only?" - **Offer concrete options** — when the codebase reveals possible paths, list them as hints - **Build on prior answers** — each question should incorporate what you learned from previous rounds - **Never ask about codebase facts** — if you can read the code to find out, do that instead of asking ### After each answer 1. Re-score the targeted dimension based on the answer 2. Check if any NEW dimension dropped (the answer may reveal new ambiguity) 3. Print updated scores: ``` [BW] clarity update: Goal: 85% (+15) ✓ Scope: 45% (+0) ← next target Criteria: 60% (+10) Risk: 30% (+0) ───────────────── Overall: 60% ``` ### Exit conditions Stop the question loop when: - Overall score >= 80% → proceed with confidence - User says "go", "skip", "enough", "시작", "됐어", "ㄱㄱ" → proceed with current understanding - 5 rounds completed → proceed with what you have, flag remaining gaps ## Step 4: Clarification summary Print the final requirements spec: ``` [BW] ═══════════════════════════════════ [BW] clarify complete — {N} rounds, {overall}% clarity [BW] ═══════════════════════════════════ ## Requirements (confirmed) {Bullet list of confirmed requirements from the original request + answers} ## Decisions made {Bullet list of decisions from the Q&A that resolved ambiguity} ## Open gaps (if any) {Bullet list of remaining low-score areas — flagged but not blocking} ## Recommended execution - Mode: {solo/trio/blitz based on scope} - Agents: {recommended agent list} ``` ## Step 5: Execution bridge After the summary, offer next steps: ``` [BW] next: a) execute now — proceed with these requirements b) ask more — continue clarifying c) save spec — save to .bestwork/specs/ and decide later ``` If user picks (a): route to the appropriate execution skill (delegate/trio/blitz/deliver) based on the classified scope. If user picks (c): save to `.bestwork/specs/{timestamp}-{slug}.md`. ## Step 6: State persistence Save clarification state to `.bestwork/state/clarify.json`: ```json { "created": "<ISO timestamp>", "originalRequest": "<user's original prompt>", "rounds": [ { "round": 1, "dimension": "scope", "question": "...", "answer": "...", "scoreDelta": { "scope": 25 } } ], "finalScores": { "goal": 90, "scope": 75, "criteria": 85, "risk": 60 }, "overallScore": 80, "decisions": ["..."], "openGaps": ["..."], "status": "complete" } ``` ## Rules - NEVER ask more than 5 questions — this is clarify, not an interrogation - NEVER ask about things you can read from the codebase — explore first, ask second - NEVER ask generic questions ("What are the requirements?") — be specific and contextual - ALWAYS offer concrete options/hints when the codebase suggests possible paths - ALWAYS target the lowest-scoring dimension — explain why that dimension matters - ALWAYS allow the user to skip ("go") at any point — respect their time - ALWAYS re-score after each answer — show progress transparently - The auto-pass threshold (80%) should prevent unnecessary questioning on clear requests - If the user provides a spec/PRD/issue with clear acceptance criteria, auto-pass immediately - Questions should uncover RISKS and EDGE CASES that the user may not have considered, not just restate what they said
Auf GitHub ansehen